An attempt is made to share the truth regarding issues concerning Israel and her right to exist as a Jewish nation. This blog has expanded to present information about radical Islam and its potential impact upon Israel and the West. Yes, I do mix in a bit of opinion from time to time.

Monday, July 07, 2014

How Not To Indict a Terrorist

What happens when the president who has politicized
law-enforcement to a degree unprecedented in American history meets a
terrorist responsible for killing Americans he has recklessly failed to
protect, decimating his pretensions about "decimating" al-Qaeda?
What happens is: You get the most politicized terrorism indictment ever produced by the Justice Department. Behold United States v. Khatallah,
Case No. 14 Crim. 141, quietly unsealed in a Washington courtroom last
Saturday while the country dozed off into summer-vacation mode.
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, of course, is the only suspect apprehended in
connection with the Benghazi massacre, a terrorist attack on a
still-mysterious U.S. diplomatic installation. J. Christopher Stevens,
the United States ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans - State
Department official Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods
and Glen Doherty - were killed. Until recently, such attacks have been
known as acts of war carried out by the enemy. In the age of Obama,
they are now known as "crimes" for which "defendants" like Khatallah
are "brought to justice" - rather than brought to Gitmo. Meaning: They
are whisked into our country when no one's paying much attention. The
red carpet is rolled out at a federal courthouse, where the "defendant"
is given Miranda warnings, taxpayer-funded counsel, and all
the rights of the American citizens they plot to kill, including lavish
discovery-of-intelligence files relevant to their civilian trial.
Gold-plated due process for our enemies begins with the
constitutional right to an indictment returned by a grand jury,
providing the "defendant" with notice of the charges against him. In
Khatallah's case, the first thing you'll notice is that the indictment
is tiny: less than two pages long - 15 measly lines of text once you
discount the caption, citations, and signature lines. This is a
startling departure from Justice Department indictments in jihadist
terror cases, a turn to brevity that cannot be explained solely by
Obama's banning of words like "jihadist" from the government lexicon.
In big criminal cases - and there are none bigger than those
involving terrorist attacks - indictments tend toward book length,
written in a narrative style designed to cut through the legalese and
explain what happened. See, if the prosecutor is ethically convinced
that there is sufficient evidence to convict an accused terrorist, his
duty is to plead the case as expansively as necessary to get that
evidence admitted.
In terrorism cases, that has always meant fully describing the nature
of the terrorist enterprise. Look at the Justice Department's jihadist
cases from the Nineties (see e.g., here).
They explain the history of the international jihadist network; the
different terrorist organizations and state sponsors it encompasses; the
identity, status, and roles of the players; plus all of the different
plots and attacks that knit the network together.
The idea is to frame the case in a way that completely and coherently
relates it - making it easier for judges to admit controversial
evidence and jurors to grasp the willfulness of the accused. That is why
the most critical decision made by the prosecutor drafting a terrorism
indictment is Count One - i.e., the first statutory offense alleged.

Because jihadist terror is concerted activity involving many
terrorists and organizations, the first count should always be an
overarching conspiracy charge that sets the stage for a full exposition
of what the defendants did and why they did it. In the Blind Sheikh
indictment I wrote in 1993, Count One was a five-year, still ongoing
"conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States"
(charged under the Civil War-era seditious conspiracy statute in the
federal code). In the indictment filed after al-Qaeda bombed the
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Count One was a near
decade-long, ongoing "conspiracy to kill United States nationals"
(charged under a statute addressing "acts of terrorism transcending
national boundaries" added to the code in the 1996 overhaul of
anti-terrorism law). Such opening charges, framing the main themes of
the prosecution, are generally prefaced by a descriptive introduction,
unfolding the enterprise from its origins through its evolution in the
months and years that followed - often right up to the date the
indictment was filed.
Pleading the conspiracy this way enables prosecutors to prove
"background evidence" - showing how the players came to know each other,
and how those relationships logically evolved into a conspiratorial
enterprise with a structure and hierarchy. Moreover, because the law
presumes that a conspiracy continues indefinitely until its objectives
are achieved, the prosecutor who alleges that the conspiracy has
continued even after its latest terrorist atrocities maximizes the
chances of having any newly discovered evidence ruled admissible. After
all, if the principal conspiratorial agreement is to levy war on the
United States or mass-murder American nationals, the conspiracy does
not end just because a skyscraper or an embassy has been bombed. There
are still members of the terrorist organization at large, they still
seek to kill Americans, and their ongoing activities (e.g., bombings to
retaliate for arrests) could help cinch the case.
Traditionally, the Justice Department handles things this way because
the point of prosecuting the case is to obtain convictions on the most
serious, readily provable charges that can be brought. A terrorist
should be charged and convicted as a terrorist, not for some lesser
offense. The more the evidence is allowed to sing for itself, the more
the prosecutor is seen as revealing the truth rather than trying to
shape or shade it. Jurors, using their common sense, gain confidence
that the whole truth is being presented and that the accused truly are
guilty of heinous crimes.
It seems, however, that the Khatallah prosecution is following a different strategy.
Khatallah has been identified by the State Department as a "senior leader" of Ansar al-Sharia, one of the al-Qaeda-tied franchises
in Libya. Yet there is no mention of Ansar al-Sharia in the indictment,
much less of al-Qaeda or the Islamic-supremacist ideology that ties
jihadist affiliates together. In fact, the indictment does not even accuse Khatallah of being a terrorist.
This fact has been missed in the coverage. Most reporters are not
lawyers. They see that the indictment does charge a conspiracy, and that
this conspiracy does involve terrorism, so they understandably assume
it must be a standard terrorism conspiracy indictment. But look more
carefully. Khatallah is not charged with being a member of a terrorist
conspiracy to kill Americans or attack American facilities. He is
charged with the lesser offense of conspiring to provide material
support to these terrorists - nameless and not further described.
In other words, the Justice Department is not alleging that Khatallah
himself was a terrorist. It is saying that there were some elusive
"terrorists" hanging around Benghazi, and Khatallah conspired to help
the "terrorists" by contributing personnel - mainly, himself - to their
machinations, knowing that these just might include preparation for a
lethal attack on a U.S. facility.
Oh, and the duration of this conspiracy? It is alleged to have lasted about one day - i.e., from approximately sometime on September 11, 2012, to sometime after midnight September 12.
One day. In fact, maybe it was just a few hours.
Think about that. Radical Islam's war against the United States has
been underway for over 20 years. Eastern Libya has been an al-Qaeda
hotbed for much of that time. That is why our government financially
supported Muammar Qaddafi: His regime was providing intelligence on
terror hubs like Benghazi and Derna, from which jihadists launched to
fight American troops in Iraq. When President Obama turned on Qaddafi,
terrorist organizations like Ansar al-Sharia were the beneficiaries. In
the months before September 11, 2012, they repeatedly attacked Western
targets in Eastern Libya - including one bombing attack on the U.S.
diplomatic installation itself. Although this jihadist campaign induced
other countries to pull their personnel out of the region, Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not only left ours in, they reduced security.
Yet none of that finds its way into the indictment. Nothing about the
background of anti-American jihad in Benghazi. Nothing about a
previous attack on the U.S. diplomatic installation that jihadists
themselves described
as retaliation for the American killing of al-Qaeda's leader in Libya,
Abu Yahya al-Libi (Hassan Mohammed Qaed). Nothing about al-Qaeda's
emir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, publicly calling for Libyan jihadists to
avenge al-Libi by "fighting and killing the crusaders" - after all,
hadn't Obama already "decimated" al-Qaeda? Nothing about the attacks
against British diplomats and the Red Cross. Nothing about Khatallah's
position as an Ansar al-Sharia commander, nothing about the fact that
he had been inveighing
against the presence of an American facility in Benghazi in the days
before September 11, and nothing about the Ansar al-Sharia forces
marshaling outside the facility before the attack - armed with
rocket-propelled grenade launchers, AK-47 rifles, and other weapons.

Nothing about a long-running, ongoing jihadist war against the United States.
Instead, the indictment is written to portray a sudden, spontaneous
eruption of violence, without much planning or warning, in which
Khatallah - who knows . . . perhaps inspired by a video - abruptly
joined a disgruntled group of protesters that turned out to include some
shady terrorists motivated by . . . well, who can really say? All we
know is the violence started without warning and, before you could
scramble a fighter-jet or fuel up Air Force One for a Vegas campaign
junket, it was all over.
There are a lot of downsides to giving enemy-combatant terrorists all
the majesty of American due process. But at least it used to mean
that, by the end, you'd have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. Now, it's starting to look like what you get on the
Sunday shows.
A version of this piece previously appeared on National Review Online.

We are hypocrites and cowards - we take freedom for granted as it is eroding underneath our feet‏

Message to offended Muslims

A GOOD, TRUE STORY NOT KNOWN BY MANY.....Air Force.

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

What happened?

Mark Hasten Tribute Video Touro College

Housing Quiz

The Record-so far...!

CBS special on Bengazi

Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

Sally Nelson

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

Islamization on the move

"What we are dealing with is Islamization. Islamization is the imposition of ideological norms in increasing severity. Like Nazification, it transforms a society by remaking it in its own image from the largest to the smallest of details."Daniel Greenfield

Toronto rejects Anti-Israel Ads...

Shrinking Lands

Why Israel opposes international forces in the jordan valley/

/why-israel-opposes-international-forces-in-the-jordan-valley/

Islam is Islam, And That’s It

Back in 2007, when confronted with the phrase “moderate Islam”, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously responded: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading and annotating this video: View video at http://gatesofvienna.net/

There's no racist like a liberal racist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vz4PjxSmtoI

Ex-Navy SEAL Drops Bombshell On FOX: Says Government is Creating Conditions to Impose Martial Law R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDuds14OBiE#t=156

American surprise

The Nairobi Mall Massacre

Ninh Chu Ninh Chu

Islam Untied

Platitudes about Islam being a faith of peace are not credible anymore. Islam is only as good as the way its followers practice it; and if they have created killing fields in the name of Islam, then Islam will be recognized by the silence of those who did not speak out when their faith was being massacred to massacre humanity.

AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching

What-are you against peace?

Sydney Wake Up The Horrific Muslim Infiltration Of Britain - Luton

Kerry: 'Core Issue of Instability ... Is the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict'‏

Kerry is no friend. By endorsing the "Arab peace initiative" he shows his true intentions and beliefs . And by endorsing linkage he shows that he is either a liar or a fool.Syria is on fire, Egypt is at best incredibly unstable and this is due to Israel? It is out in the open!

A word to left-wing students

In their own words-ru listening?

"The lesson these Islamist groups appear to be drawing from events in Egypt is that democratic engagement with opponents is pointless. And that doesn't bode well for countries with strong Islamist movements..."

Flashback: Obama Admits He Cut Medicare

Another Democratic slogan blown to h....

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

When nations and cultures ignore the early warning signs of the infiltration of radical Islam

The UK has 85 sharia courts. France has over 750 “no go zones,” Muslim enclaves where even French police don’t enter.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDKk15KcqNk&feature=email

No such thing as "Islamophobia"

However, if you do not want your positions challenged or criticized or even researched, make up a new "phobia"-shout it long enough and some "people", agenda driven, will use it. Ay, yes, the false term does keep many, many financially rewarded-follow the money.gs don morris, Ph.D.

Khader Adnan: Leader of Islamic jihad or innocent baker?

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.More...

Omar Barghouti's Propaganda at USC on January 12, 2012

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’ -- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.Clare M. Lopez

Americans are opening their eyes

Advertisers fleeing All-American Muslim 'propaganda'The American people are seeing through the propaganda piece that is TLC's All-American Muslim reality/dawah show, and responsible advertisers are fleeing in droves. The show aims to combat a trumped-up problem, "Islamophobia," by presenting Muslims who are just ordinary folk, and

Why Islam is Incompatible with Western Law

Col. Allen West answers a question on muslim terror

Challah's Gaza Rocket Counter

This Month:4Last Month:191

This Year: 562

Total since 2002: 12055

Cease fire Hamas style!!

Thanks http://challahhuakbar.blogspot.com/

"Islamophobia"

"Islamophobia" was a politically manipulative coinage designed to silence critics of Islamic supremacism.It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia.

10 Unknown West Bank Facts

Liberals Redefine "Extremism" and the "Political Center"

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist.The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Don’t ever call it ‘West Bank’ again

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Who do the territories belong to?

The legal borders of Israel under international law

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror YeminiIn 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state. Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

How Liberals Argue

Hebrew Univ-you rock!!

Judea and Samaria are not "occupied" lands-why?

Judea-Samaria were not only parts of the ancient Jewish homeland but were recognized as part of the Jewish National Home recognized by San Remo and the League of Nations [1920, 1922] and by the UN charter [article 80; 1945].

"Political Correctness."

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."Texas A&M

Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul on the climate issues

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

WHAT Golda Meir actually said...

"When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." Golda Meir June 15, 1969: Interview in the UK Sunday Times

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

About Me

Semi-retired Professor, now also permanent resident of Israel;divides time between both countries-serves on several Boards of Directors for Israel advocacy groups;Chana, resident of Jerusalem, JCPA member